From: Herve Codina <herve.codina@xxxxxxxxxxx> > Sent: 16 June 2023 12:49 > > Hi David, > > On Fri, 16 Jun 2023 09:08:22 +0000 > David Laight <David.Laight@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > ... > > > > > Just define two variables typeof(__array[0] + 0) one for an element > > and one for the limit. > > The just test (eg): > > if (limit > item) limit = item; > > finally cast the limit back to the original type. > > The promotions of char/short to signed int won't matter. > > There is no need for all the type-checking in min/max. > > > > Indeed, if min_t(type, a, b) is in anyway sane it should > > expand to: > > type _a = a, _b = b; > > _a < _b ? _a : _b > > without any of the checks that min() does. > > I finally move to use _Generic() in order to "unconstify" and avoid the > integer promotion. With this done, no extra cast is needed and min()/max() > are usable. > > The patch is available in the v5 series. > https://lore.kernel.org/linux-kernel/20230615152631.224529-8-herve.codina@xxxxxxxxxxx/ > > Do you think the code present in the v5 series should be changed ? > If so, can you give me your feedback on the v5 series ? It seems horribly over-complicated just to get around the perverse over-strong type checking that min/max do just to avoid sign extension issues. Maybe I ought to try getting a patch accepted that just checks is_signed_type(typeof(x)) == is_signed_type(typeof(y)) instead of typeof(x) == typeof(y) Then worry about the valid signed v unsigned cases. Indeed, since the array index can be assumed not to have side effects you could use __cmp(x, y, op) directly. No one has pointed out that __element should be __bound. David - Registered Address Lakeside, Bramley Road, Mount Farm, Milton Keynes, MK1 1PT, UK Registration No: 1397386 (Wales)
